post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Mark Townsley

2012-08-22

03

(System)

post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Russ Housley

2012-08-22

03

(System)

post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Alex Zinin

2006-04-03

03

Amy Vezza

State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza

2006-04-03

03

Amy Vezza

[Note]: 'RFC 4450' added by Amy Vezza

2006-03-29

03

(System)

RFC published

2006-02-06

03

Amy Vezza

State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza

2006-01-27

03

Amy Vezza

IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent

2006-01-27

03

Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2006-01-27

03

Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2006-01-27

03

Brian Carpenter

State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Brian Carpenter

2006-01-25

03

Alex Zinin

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Alex Zinin has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Alex Zinin

2006-01-16

03

Russ Housley

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Russ Housley

2006-01-12

03

Mark Townsley

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Mark Townsley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Mark Townsley

2006-01-10

03

(System)

New version available: draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-03.txt

2005-12-19

03

Alex Zinin

[Ballot discuss]If approving this document means moving all specs in the list to Historic, then I have to disagree. A number of documents (e ...

[Ballot discuss]If approving this document means moving all specs in the list to Historic, then I have to disagree. A number of documents (e.g. RIP DC extensions, PPP over X.25) are implemented and used in real-life networks.

If the intention is to have an archival copy of the experiment's results, then the document should be a bit more clear that it is not attempting to move all those specs to Historic summarily.

List of questionable retirements:

> RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP))> RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks)> RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits)> RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF)> RFC1598 (PPP in X.25)> RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM)

Checking with rtg-dir now. Will clear if no one objects.

2005-12-16

03

(System)

Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-12-15

2005-12-15

03

Amy Vezza

State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza

2005-12-15

03

Alex Zinin

[Ballot discuss]If approving this document means moving all specs in the list to Historic, then I have to disagree. A number of documents (e ...

[Ballot discuss]If approving this document means moving all specs in the list to Historic, then I have to disagree. A number of documents (e.g. RIP DC extensions, PPP over X.25) are implemented and used in real-life networks.

If the intention is to have an archival copy of the experiment's results, then the document should be a bit more clear that it is not attempting to move all those specs to Historic summarily.

2005-12-15

03

Alex Zinin

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin

2005-12-15

03

Mark Townsley

[Ballot discuss]I believe this was recently referenced in a DSL Forum specification (Technical Report) as a current way handle advertising a single route (or ...

[Ballot discuss]I believe this was recently referenced in a DSL Forum specification (Technical Report) as a current way handle advertising a single route (or small set of routes) to a CPE when connecting to a BRAS. Please contact David Allan <dallan@nortel.com> as DSL Forum Arch & Transport Co-Chair to determine status of this.

RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits)

2005-12-15

03

Mark Townsley

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley

2005-12-15

03

Bill Fenner

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner

2005-12-15

03

Allison Mankin

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin

2005-12-15

03

Bert Wijnen

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen

2005-12-15

03

David Kessens

[Ballot comment]I am not clear on how this document fits in the new-trk working group charter.

I also agree with Russ that I am ...

[Ballot comment]I am not clear on how this document fits in the new-trk working group charter.

I also agree with Russ that I am confused about this document:It is an informational document that describes an experiment ?

I also cannot agree with the conclusions of the experiment:

Basically, declaring success if many documents are reclassified as Historic.

Is this document telling us that the current process actually works andeverything is fine ?

To me this merely is a success from the point of view of a paperpusher.Yes, we got documents reclassified but did we do any good for the IETF beyond spending a lot of time and resources on this topic ? Does anybody care that we declared documents historic that nobody was using anyways ?

Do we have any clue how we can repeat this so that we won't end up with yetanother large set of cruft in the future ?

This document's status is Informational and I see little harm in publishing it, so I have decided not stand in the way of publication.

2005-12-15

03

David Kessens

[Ballot comment]I am not clear on how this document fits in the new-trk working group charter.

I also agree with Russ that I am ...

[Ballot comment]I am not clear on how this document fits in the new-trk working group charter.

I also agree with Russ that I am confused about this document:It is an informational document that describes an experiment ?

I also cannot agree with the conclusions of the experiment:

Basically, declaring success if many documents are reclassified as Historic.

Is this document telling us that the current process actually works andeverything is fine ?

To me this merely is a success from the point of view of a paperpusher.Yes, we got documents reclassified but did we do any good for the IETF beyond spending a lot of time and resources on this topic ? Does anybody care that we declared documents historic that nobody was using anyways ?

Do we have any clue how we can repeat this so that we won't end up with yetanother large set of cruft in the future ?

This document's status is Informational and I see little harm in publishing it, so I have decided not stand in the way of publication.

2005-12-15

03

David Kessens

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens

2005-12-14

03

Margaret Cullen

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman

2005-12-14

03

Russ Housley

[Ballot discuss]I find the title of this document confusing. It is not calling for an experiment; rather, it is reporting the results ...

[Ballot discuss]I find the title of this document confusing. It is not calling for an experiment; rather, it is reporting the results of an experiment. I would like to the title reflect this situation. I am willing tp change my ballot position to YES once the title is changed.

2005-12-14

03

Russ Housley

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley

2005-12-13

03

Sam Hartman

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman

2005-12-13

03

Ted Hardie

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie

2005-12-13

03

Scott Hollenbeck

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck

2005-11-29

03

Brian Carpenter

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter

2005-11-29

03

Brian Carpenter

Ballot has been issued by Brian Carpenter

2005-11-29

03

Brian Carpenter

Created "Approve" ballot

2005-11-22

03

Brian Carpenter

State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Brian Carpenter

2005-11-22

03

Brian Carpenter

Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-12-15 by Brian Carpenter

2005-11-21

02

(System)

New version available: draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt

2005-11-04

03

(System)

State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system

2005-10-24

03

Michelle Cotton

IANA Last Call Comments:Upon approval of this document the IANA will review all the IANA registries and update the references to be this document ...

IANA Last Call Comments:Upon approval of this document the IANA will review all the IANA registries and update the references to be this document for the all documents described in section 3. Should all the actual assignments also be marked as OBSOLETE or should the reference only be changed?

2005-10-21

03

Amy Vezza

Last call sent

2005-10-21

03

Amy Vezza

State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza

2005-10-21

03

Brian Carpenter

State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Brian Carpenter

2005-10-21

03

Brian Carpenter

Last Call was requested by Brian Carpenter

2005-10-21

03

(System)

Ballot writeup text was added

2005-10-21

03

(System)

Last call text was added

2005-10-21

03

(System)

Ballot approval text was added

2005-10-20

03

Brian Carpenter

Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None

2005-10-20

03

Brian Carpenter

State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Brian Carpenter